The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical what

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 289-320

  Dehé, Nicole ^a,b   Kavalova, Yordanka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57749123269     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1360674306001936     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (55)

1. Ackema, P. & A. Neeleman (2004). Beyond morphology: interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bing, J. M. (1985). Aspects of English prosody. New York and London: Garland.
3. Birner, B. J. & G. Ward (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Studies in Language Companion Series 40. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
4. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Blakemore, D. (1991). Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91: 197-213.
6. Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: an introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Blakemore, D. (2004). Discourse markers. In Horn, L. & G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. 221-40.
9. Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its uses: melody in grammar and discourse. London: Arnold.
10. Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: grammaticalisation and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Burton-Roberts, N. (2006). Parentheticals. In Brown, K. (ed.-in-chief), Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd edition, vol. 9. Elsevier Science. 179-82.
12. Carston, R. (1999). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: a view from relevance theory. In Turner, K. (ed.), The semantics-pragmatics interface from different points of view. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 85-125.
13. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Cooper, W. & J. Sorensen (1981). Fundamental frequency in sentence production. Heidelberg: Springer.
15. Corver, N. & C. Thiersch (2002). Remarks on parentheticals. In van Oostendorp, M. & E. Anagnostopoulou (eds.), Progress in grammar. Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg. Online publication, available at http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/ progressingrammar.
16. Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Emonds, J. (1973). Parenthetical clauses. In Corum, C., T. C. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (eds.), You take the high node and I'll take the low node. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 333-47.
18. Espinal, M. (1991). The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67: 726-62.
19. Fagyal, Z. (2002). Prosodic boundaries in the vicinity of utterance-medial parentheticals in French. Probus 14: 93-111.
20. Gee, J. P. & F. Grosjean (1983). Performance structures: a psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15: 411-58.
21. Haegeman, L. (1988). Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, S., A. Shuki, A. Ogawa, Y. Fuiwara, N. Yamada, O. Koma & T. Yagi (eds.), Aspects of modern linguistics: papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th Birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. 232-54.
22. Hoffmann, L. (1998). Parenthesen. Linguistische Berichte 175: 299-328.
23. Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24. Jackendoff, R. (1977). X' syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Kaltenböck, G. (2005). Charting the boundaries of syntax: a taxonomy of spoken parenthetical clauses. Vienna English Working Papers 14: 21-53.
27. Kavalova, Y. (2004). Conceptual and procedural parentheticals in English. Paper presented at the 25th Conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME 25). Verona, Italy, 19-23 May 2004.
28. König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles. London and New York: Routledge.
29. Ladd, D. R. (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311-40.
30. Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Levey, S. (2005). The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker LIKE in preadolescent speech. Ms., Queen Mary, University of London. To appear in Multilingua.
32. McCawley, J. D. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 91-106.
33. Nelson, G., S. Wallis & B. Aarts (2002). Exploring natural language: working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
34. Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1986). Prosodic phonology. Studies in Generative Grammar 28. Dordrecht: Foris.
35. Peterson, P. (1999). On the boundaries of syntax. In Collins, P. & D. Lee (eds.), The clause in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229-50.
36. Potts, C. (2002). The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 623-89.
37. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
38. Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 271-97.
39. Ross, J. R. (1973). Slifting. In Gross, M., M. Halle & M.-P. Schützenberger (eds.), The formal analysis of natural languages. Proceedings of the first international conference. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. 133-69.
40. Safir, K. (1986). Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663-89.
41. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371-405.
43. Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 550-69.
44. Selkirk, E. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, J. L. & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 187-213.
45. Shiffrin, D. (2003). Discourse markers: language, meaning and context. In Shiffrin, D., D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
46. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986/1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
47. Taglicht, J. (1998). Constraints on intonational phrasing in English. Journal of Linguistics 34: 181-211.
48. Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. (Slightly revised version of) PhD dissertation, MIT.
49. Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219-55.
50. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney and Auckland: Arnold.
51. Ward, G. & B. J. Birner (1995). Definiteness and the English existential. Language 71: 722-42.
52. Wichmann, A. (2000). Intonation in text and discourse: beginnings, middles and ends. Harlow: Longman.
53. Wichmann, A. (2001). Spoken parentheticals. In Aijmer, K.. (ed.), A wealth of English: studies in honour of Göran Kjellmer. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. 177-93.
54. Zec, D. (2005). Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22: 77-112.
55. Zec, D. & S. Inkelas (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In Inkelas, S. & D. Zec (eds.), The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 365-78.